I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse.
If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Hammett via Af To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Stefan Englhardt via Af" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Yeeeeaaaaa, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, "ubntboys" (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Af [[email protected]] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af <[email protected]> wrote: I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready for primetime.� I�m waiting. � Rory � From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of TJ Trout via Af Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 6:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance � How are the rocket AC's performing for you guys? Throughput? Bugs? -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
